THIS JUST IN: THE LATEST STUDY

THIS JUST IN: THE LATEST STUDY

Have you ever noticed that there is never a shortage of ‘the latest study’? It would seem as though the entire world was studying.

I recently did a web search for the term ‘latest study’. I should have been a little more specific as my search turned up 272 million possible web pages. Wow.

On the first page of my little expedition, I ran into the latest study(and here) on the feathered dinosaurs that were recently discovered in China. Remember my story earlier in June on that? Well, after voicing my utter disbelief in the contradictions in the story, I left it to the reader to decide what to think. The study that I just found is dated October 10, 2005, months before all of the hype surrounding the Gansus yumenesis surfaced in the mainstream media. It seems that the University of North Carolina had pretty much proven that this was no link between dinosaurs and modern day birds. In fact, it had terrific evidence that the so called ‘feathers’ were actually pieces of flayed skin.

The articles that have been published since then simply highlight the fact that the press seems fit to leave out any information that simply does not support the cause celeb or the fascinating Science Journal study of the day. This does a great disservice to real science.

Scientists at Texas Tech University have found that there is no link between children watching television and AD/HD, the now familiar term for children who have difficulty focusing. No kidding. Part of the problem that our children are having today is the fact that we are waking them up at 5 am to take them to their child care, pick them up at dinner, take them home, feed them, and then pass out. Johnny no longer has a functioning family time. He is hardly ever read to or played with. Add to that the fact that most school curriculums border on the mundane and tedious, and it is no wonder Johnny can’t focus. Perhaps instead of giving him or her that pill, we could play with them and spend some quality time together.

It seems that there is now a birth control pill that will all but eliminate a woman’s menstrual cycle. Why do women keep doing this stuff to themselves? Early results see no ill side effects, but long term studies are yet to be undertaken. Let me save you millions of dollars in research and thousands of hours of lab work. Whenever we mess with the natural order of things, i.e., the way we were designed, we tend to make a mess of things.

I will suggest the following ill effects over the long term: a lack of sexual libido, trouble conceiving children and an increased risk of ovarian and/or breast cancer. What makes me qualified to guess? Common sense. A woman menstruates not only to conceive, but to cleanse the body of unneeded and unused materials necessary for birthing and of toxins. But, we’ll just design yet another pill to counter that problem later.

One study on the website of the Rand Corporation, which boasts “Objective Analysis. Effective Solutions” weighs in on a study regarding low fertility and population aging in European nations. It is subtitled ‘Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options”. It came up with three ideas in dealing with the problem. (1) encourage childbearing (marriage and cohabitation) among younger couples; (2) increase immigration of working-age people; and (3) reform social policy more generally, in order to ameliorate the negative consequences of these trends.

I find this absolutely laughable and yet another stunning example at how the liberal left simply does not understand the effects of their ‘rights’ and ‘values’ and failed social policy as they disassemble the societal norms which have been paramount in assuring our continuity. (For those of you in Ryerson, that means morals and values.)

Nowhere in the three policy approaches mentioned in the study do the authors acknowledge nor even entertain the idea that perhaps aborting millions, yes millions, of unborn children may affect our populations. Let’s not forget the continual assault on the traditional family, that repressive archaic thing that has been the catalyst behind the rebirth of our peoples. We not only acknowledge, but in some nations we now encourage, same sex relationships. Those are the types which will bare no fruit in the form of offspring. Our economic policies discourage large families and sometimes any at all. Last but not least, the ceaseless efforts of the World Health Organization, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations, and others for ensuring that we avoid ‘unwanted pregnancies’, a term almost unheard when I was growing up. Children were a blessing back then, not a burden.

Next study. Remember the old adage “An Apple a Day……”? You know the one. I was pretty much convinced that everyone already knew that apples were healthy. Apparently some apple producers weren’t convinced and commissioned a study on whether an apple a day kept the doctor away. It seems that the adage is true. Were there ever any doubters out there? The orange producers association maybe? I have to ask why the study to find out something that we already knew en masse. Don’t worry. An even later study not out yet will likely warn us as to the dangers of eating sprayed apples.

The last study was on astrology and involved 15,000 people. This one wins the ‘waste of time’ award. It seems that there is no basis to astrology as an indicator to one’s success, failure, demeanor, or other quality. I have an important question on this subject. Why would one study such a thing? It wouldn’t matter if you studied everyone. Those who think astrology is silly are not going to yell, “What? I was wrong?” and convert; and those who watch their horoscope religiously are not going to simply give it up.

Before I was done with my study on studies, I even ran across another chap in journalism who said he was fed up with all of the latest studies. Who would have thought?